If a behavioural and emotional disorder or class of disorders has a lifetime prevalence of over 50% does this constitute something which is normal?

Depression and anxiety and other common mental disorders have a high
lifetime prevalence. In America it's estimated in one study at near or
above 50%. With the extension of grief to become a common mental
disorder (rather than a psychiatric illness) this will tip the scales.

Surely grief is normal? Perhaps it's only because the American system of
healthcare is private insurance backed and there's a need for insurers
to have diagnoses to provide care grief is becoming a mental illness.

It really does beg the question as to what a mental illness is and what
is treatment. Grief is an experience synonymous with the human
condition. Everyone experiences the death of a loved one or thing.

A lot of people also experience high levels of anxiety or misery during
those life. Those lucky few who don't need help in my opinion because
these pathological experiences have value and ,may exist because of the
highs of intense periods of happiness and carefreeness the likes of
which automotons will never experience.

Pathology is therefore based on distress or an aspect of pathology. But
it is remembering that these things aren't truly illness that is
important. There is also a definition of mental illness that revolves
around concepts of normality. By definition a mental illness or a mental
health problem can't really be one if it's normal, i.e. if everyone
experiences it naturally.

That's sort of the argument why grief shouldn't be pathologised. But
psychiatric reasoning for pathologisation of each diagnoses shifts and
changes like a politician justifying a bad decision. There's no simple,
single reason which covers the spectrum of behaviours, emotions and
experiences of consciousness covered by the expanse of conditions in
psychiatric reference manuals, manuals which psychiatrists are meant to
know throughly.

The notion of mental illness as a normal thing is quite strange to the
old guard in any camp of mental health thinking. For them there has
always been a divide between the mentally ill and the mad, just like
there's supposedly a clear divide between homosexuality and
heterosexuality. Except there isn't and there aren't these clear divides
between automotons and the mad.

But those who insist that grief shouldn't be pathologised need to
consider their perspective just as those who consider it should be
pathologised should also consider their persepctive carefully. Disorder
versus distress are perhaps the two important paradigms to think of.
Take what you will from the thought about this paragraph. I'm bored of
this post.